Don't Let Gun Rights Haters Intimidate You

Terry Rumsey and Robin Lasersohn of Delaware County United For a Sensible Gun Policy [sic] telling us what they really want to do with guns.

I can hear many gun owners laughing saying “I not afraid of those gunless and gutless morons”, but it's not physical intimidation I'm talking about. Think about it. They can't use force to shut us up but many of us are intimidated into silence by their rhetoric.

A prime example came from Pres. Obama during CNN's “Guns in America”. They went to great lengths to mock those concerned that the government might one day try to disarm us. Why do this? Because they want to bury the fact that they've long been saying that they do indeed want to disarm us. (See here, here, here, here and here.) True that they aren't going to require turning in guns nor are they sending out SWAT teams to take guns from people but they are trying to implement an incremental disarmament strategy. Obama said he wants to “make progress” and “incrementally make things better” with his anti-gun rights diktats. He was talking about gradually disarming us. It is discussion of this strategy that they want to intimidate us out of.

Ayn Rand referred to it as the argument from intimidation. Here's how she summed it up:

The tone is usually one of scornful or belligerent incredulity. “Surely you are not an advocate of capitalism, are you?” And if this does not intimidate the prospective victim—who answers, properly: “I am,”—the ensuing dialogue goes something like this: “Oh, you couldn’t be! Not really!” “Really.” “But everybody knows that capitalism is outdated!” “I don’t.” “Oh, come now!” “Since I don’t know it, will you please tell me the reasons for thinking that capitalism is outdated?” “Oh, don’t be ridiculous!” “Will you tell me the reasons?” “Well, really, if you don’t know, I couldn’t possibly tell you!”

All this is accompanied by raised eyebrows, wide-eyed stares, shrugs, grunts, snickers and the entire arsenal of nonverbal signals communicating ominous innuendoes and emotional vibrations of a single kind: disapproval.

If those vibrations fail, if such debaters are challenged, one finds that they have no arguments, no evidence, no proof, no reasons, no ground to stand on—that their noisy aggressiveness serves to hide a vacuum—that the Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence.

In order to fool gun owners into accepting background checks and restrictions on the ownership, transfer, and transportation of guns they have to hide the real purpose of these measures. It's not about safety, Obama admitted they won't reduce crime during the clown show on CNN. To repeat, it's about gradually disarming us.

To restore our rights we're going to have to be mentally tough enough to stand up to gun rights haters. What Ludwig Von Mises wrote about economics applies to guns:

The enemy is not refuted: enough to unmask him as a bourgeois. Marxism criticizes the achievements of all those who think otherwise by representing them as the venal servants of the bourgeoisie. Marx and Engels never tried to refute their opponents with argument. They insulted, ridiculed, derided, slandered, and traduced them, and in the use of these methods their followers are not less expert. Their polemic is directed never against the argument of the opponent, but always against his person. Few have been able to withstand such tactics. Few indeed have been courageous enough to oppose Socialism with that remorseless criticism which it is the duty of the scientific thinker to apply to every subject of inquiry.

The answer is clear, since they want to bury the idea of incremental disarmament we have to have the courage to shout it from the roof tops. Bring it up anytime gun control is discussed. Whether it's in comments to online articles, letters to the editor, or opinion columns, bring up incremental disarmament. In online forums, bring up incremental disarmament. In face to face conversations, bring up incremental disarmament. In videos and television interviews, bring up incremental disarmament. Our gun rights and, therefore, our lives depend on it. Once again Ayn Rand:

How does one resist that Argument? There is only one weapon against it: moral certainty.

When one enters any intellectual battle, big or small, public or private, one cannot seek, desire or expect the enemy's sanction. Truth or falsehood must be one's sole concern and sole criterion of judgment—not anyone's approval or disapproval; and, above all, not the approval of those whose standards are the opposite of one's own.

The most illustrious example of the proper answer to the Argument from Intimidation was given in American history by the man who, rejecting the enemy's moral standards and with full certainty of his own rectitude, said: "If this be treason, make the most of it."

Gun Rights Haters: Victims or Aggressors?

Now these perpetual “victims” want to learn about “Powerfully Peaceful Action in the Face of Armed and Aggressive Opposition”. Why do they say they need to do this? Because, according to them, “Almost every group in the gun sense movement has – at some time in the last several years – been confronted by armed and/or aggressive counter demonstrators at one of our public actions.” Though as you can see at the link above no examples of any aggressive behavior towards them are given. Of course, we often counter-demonstrate their events armed but that's not aggression as the zero body count and zero hospitalization rate among attendees show. If being around guns frightens them there is a name for that, hoplophobia. Perhaps a psychiatrist would be more helpful to them than a workshop. 

I wish I knew what aggressiveness they've been facing. Last June we went out of our way not to interfere with their gun rights hating march from Chester to Media, two towns near Philadelphia, PA. Here is video proof that they weren't even verbally insulted.

Facing aggressors from our side isn't what's going on out there. No, they realize that they can't keep abusing us and keep the facade of goodness and victimhood intact. For example, they sure were abusive of me when I tried to flier their rally once:

Gun rights haters in Rhode Island were even worse to liberty activist Dan Bidondi:


Even disrupting a peaceful gun rights rally is held up by gun rights haters as a proper way to behave:


Then there is the vile practice of “swatting” open carriers. This is when gun rights haters call 911 and lie about open carriers' behavior so the police will stop, arrest, or even kill them.

Who really are the aggressors here? Certainly not gun rights advocates. We want only to peacefully have our rights respected. It is the other side, the gun rights haters, that want to send armed thugs with badges to infringe on our rights. Let's be very clear on this point, it is the gun rights haters who are the aggressors. They, in the form of their agents in the government, are coming after us not the other way around.

My impression is that they're stung by years of defeat in the legislatures and courts. Not to mention years of being proved wrong by the dropping crime rates that have occurred in recent decades despite the fact that there are more privately held guns than ever in the US. Just as they think that sounding more knowledgeable about guns will make them more credible and effective activists (see here for a write up of their meeting on firearms) they now think that hiding their hate will help their cause. It won't. More than a marketing problem what they have is a reality problem. They've been proved wrong and all the sweet talk in the world won't change that.

Gun Rights Haters Try To Learn About Guns

The cover of the handout containing the presentation's PowerPoint slides

You read the title correctly, Delaware County United for Sensible Gun Policy (Delco United) held their “Firearms 101 Presentation” Monday night (02/02/2015) in Springfield, PA. They figure if they gain a little book knowledge about guns they'll have more credibility. OK, stop laughing, you have an article to read.

A page from the handout questioning
the nonexistent gun show loophole

As you can see by following the link above, the presenter, 
Larry Glick, is well credentialed being a former law enforcement officer and a former National Rifle Association member. Unfortunately, my request to video his presentation was denied. Let me start with one of the most most important things that he said, “there is no gun show loophole”. He went to great lengths to explain that the idea that there are many gun sales going on at gun shows with no background checks performed is false. Glick very directly told the Delco United people not to pursue that angle. Let's let that sink in for a moment. At a meeting of one of the major gun rights hating groups in the Philadelphia area the speaker debunked one of the biggest lies that gun rights haters put out.

The evening started out interestingly enough. When I first got there Terry Rumsey and Robin Lasersohn, Co-Chairs of Delco United, recognized me as the leader of the Open Carry Counter-Rally For Gun Rights that stole the thunder from their march and rally for universal background checks in Media, PA last June. They took me aside and expressed their concern that I might try to disrupt their meeting. “We don't want people being afraid of being mocked when they ask questions”, is how I recall Robin Lasersohn putting it. After agreeing to behave, which was my intention all along, I was allowed to stay.

The presenter, Glick, hit on the de rigueur propaganda notes. “It's for the children”, he said at one point. Tellingly, Glick said that he knows that crime rates, including murder rates, are falling as are rates of gun accidents. He must also know that this is happening as the number of guns in the US is higher than ever and rising. It doesn't matter, he still thinks we need more gun control. “If we can only save one life it's worth it”, he said dramatically. Hey, who needs facts and logic when you can tug at the heartstrings? I've written several articles covering the dynamics that drive the murder rate and it's not the availability of guns that matters. They can be read here, here, here, here, and here.

Glick also went into denial and said that nobody wants to confiscate guns. He may be sincere but is very misguided. Conversations with gun rights haters often reveal that ending civilian gun ownership is their goal. I don't recall him saying much about gun bans, but he sure was talking about the kinds of so called “assault weapons” that we don't need. Let's keep in mind that when certain kinds of guns are actually banned (as opposed to the phony 1994 – 2004 “assault weapon” “ban”) they're going to be confiscated. It makes little difference if all guns are banned/confiscated at once or if it happens in gradual stages. We end up in the same place.

Let's, for a moment, assume that few or no guns will actually be banned/confiscated. Onerous regulations, severe licensing requirements, high fees, insurance mandates, and draconian penalties for minor gun infractions can end up making owning and bearing arms financially prohibitive and legally dangerous. This is a way of de facto banning/confiscating guns without making the guns themselves illegal.

Because of my good behavior, I said not one word during the whole presentation, Terry and Robin were a bit nicer after the meeting. During our conversations I asked if they'd be interested in a debate. They said no but they would be interested in a moderated discussion. That sounds like a fine idea. Stay tuned for updates.